Obama handles plagiarism charge very deftly. Everyone laughs when he calls it "silly season in politics."

"We shouldn’t be tearing each other down, we should be lifting the country up."

Finally some fireworks! Hillary calls Obama’s speeches "not change you can believe in, change you can Xerox." The first big boos of the night. She uses this to pivot to attack on health care.

Obama ignores the "Xerox" comment and goes back to the health care issue.

Are the fireworks over?

Earlier…

I thought Hillary’s opening was much stronger than Obama’s, with nice nods to Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards. Obama, who seemed a little nervous, settled for the "let me tell you about some random person I met yesterday who will humanize the issue I want to talk about" cliche. Both clumsily inserted Ohio into their openings. Eye roll.

First question of the debate was about…Cuba? Really? Gave Obama and Hillary the opportunity to debate completely meaningless distinction of talking to Raul Castro "without preparation" vs. talking with Raul Castro "with preparation," as though Obama would just drop in over the weekend for some mojitos.

Hillary did a good job of fillibustering controlling the action and getting big applause lines. Smart. She’s really a master at this format.

Immigration — they agree again.

Learning English, yep, they agree.

There hasn’t been much of an opening for Hillary to pivot on a question and go after Obama because they seem to agree on everything.

I’m a stickler for it, too — which is why my posts are so link-heavy. I never want to miss a credit to someone whose work may have shaped what I’ve written in any way. It’s too easy to slip up on that, so I try and document all my sources as closely as I can.

Because it’s the right thing to do. With speechwriting, though, sometimes the allusion to the feeling you get from a prior speech can be useful, and you can’t exactly insert footnotes. It’s a tough call on how to attribute — or allude in a sort of tributory way, ya know? Really close line.

Me too, (edit I’m a professor too) but I thought Obama’s response was great. Sometimes, there are just the best ways to say things, and you run with them- collaboration. We can debate the details of plagiarism when there’s not a live thread, but frankly, I thought this was a pretty petty attack from the Clinton campaign.

No, it’s a talking point blast fax meant to put the same words in everyone’s mouths so that the repetition gets drilled into everyone else’s brains. Keeps the whole GOP borg on the same page pundit-wise.

True … but this is a presidency … and I have really had it with having a president that uses the grey areas … that’s how we have waterboarding is not torture, guantanamo is NOT a gulag, wiretapping US citizens does not require a search warrant ad infinitum …

How will she be enforcing her mandates? She’s never said. She’s said she’ll leave that to Congress who would never pass her health care plan. And where is she pulling that 15 million figure from? It’s based on guess, not fact.

Well… speech writer’s are hired to write words that reflect the candidates’ ideas and just beef up the wording… like marketing … I dunno if it’s unethical, but it is certainly a lot better if you could write your own speechs… however, you look back in history, very few presidents ever did that … but I admire Lincoln who wrote the gettysburg address more than I would Reagan who just read Peggy Noonan’s speeches like the actor he was….

A thought-
None of them are going to do what they say. They can’t. Either the Congress will insist on doing things it’s way, or the Mighty Wurlitzer will stop it (remember Harry & Louise?). That being so, the question becomes: Who seems to have the best philosophical foundation on which to base their decisions?
That person is your candidate. Can’t get hung up on specifics.

Did I say that the Clintons had never done it? No. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Everyone needs to stop being so freaking defensive about their candidate of choice. This isn’t a “my candidate is Jesus and yours is Satan” question. It’s an issue that every speechwriter has to deal with on some level for anyone for whom they write — and for the people who speak those words: is the allusion obvious enough that people know to whom you are referencing without saying “As FDR once said…” or whatever. Or are you lifting someone else’s words, even with permission, in a way that is so close it could be misconstrued as an exact copy — and if so, you definitely need to cite somehow…or allude somehow “I was having a conversation with my friend so and so…” or “I was reading so and so…”

There are conventions that you traditionally follow with this. It isn’t new for this campaign and this set of particular candidates. Just ask Joe Biden from his first Presidential run, for hell’s sakes.

But that’s already making way more of a mountain out of a very tiny molehill than we ought to make. Honestly, I cannot wait for this primary to be over so I don’t have to worry about any tiny little thing I write being utterly misconstrued by people who are a hair trigger away from jumping down someone else’s throat for failing to like their candidates blouse or choice of cola preference.

I’m a professor, you get fired for it in my profession, it’s considered highly unethical…

In academic papers, and we can easily cite that source in context. But I’ve never seen anyone perform a Shakespeare play and shout out “that phrase is from the Bible”. And it utterly screws up a speech. It’s unclear who was the originator of that material (Obama and Deval Patrick were together when Patrick presented it) and he certainly used it “with permission”.

And we both know academics constantly use materials that are “fair use” in academic, educational contexts.

Hi guys! Long time, no post. I’m really enjoying this -missed a few things reading and listening.
I like that thery’re not mudslinging–hope HRc noticed the boos when she tried to push the “Xeroxing” thing. Have to admit, I’m not clear on the details of this supposed plagiarism” charge, but I like his “silly season” response.

it’s the passing it off as your own … you don’t need to cite “I have a dream” because folks know the source, but this speech clearing looked like it was his … he passed it off as his, not a shared idea… there’s a difference to me

Xerox was not HRC’s word, I’m sure. It was tacky and undignified. I’m sure her stupid advisors told her to say it. That, and the condescending comments that followed…just finished me off. Invent your own words Hillary…since that is what this whole issue has come down to. BO writes most of his speeches…do you?

Yes, CHS, primaries are nasty little dances. I think we have two outstanding candidates who are far superior than he who sits on the throne now, including his good buddy Dubya, and the double-talking staight-shooting bastid standing in the wings.

Their specific health care plans are both meh. Better than what we’d get with a Rethug, but I can’t say much more than that. But Clinton has this history of wanting to be secretive and I don’t like that. In either case, we’re going to have to push hard on the progressives in Congress if we win the White House.

Hillary is impressive and smart. The media let us know that she must “take him down” tonight. She must stop him. her campaign has worked on the line to be repeated tomorrow
(I think it is the xerox one.)by the talking heads.
So the competition is set up before the thing started.
I want both to give their ideas and go on campaigning.
I hate feeling this nervous.

NEW YORK (CNN) — Columbia University said Thursday it has sanctioned for plagiarism the African-American professor on whose office door a noose was found last fall.

Madonna Constantine, professor of psychology and education at the university’s Teachers College, was not dismissed, the university said.

Thursday’s announcement came after an 18-month investigation, conducted by the law firm of Hughes Hubbard and Reed, said Marcia Horowitz, a Teachers College spokeswoman.

In a report presented in December to Teachers College administrators, the firm concluded that in two dozen cases, Constantine’s published works contained language similar to passages in papers written by others, including a former teacher at the school and two of Constantine’s former students.

In a statement addressed to the Teachers College community, the 44-year-old professor said she is innocent and called the action “premature, vindictive, and mean-spirited.”

“It is my opinion that this investigation, along with other incidents that have happened to me at Teachers College in recent months, point to a conspiracy and witch hunt by certain current and former members of the Teachers College community,” she wrote.

Constantine also accused college administrators of not following due process, a charge the college denied.

“She was given a full and fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against her,” Horowitz said. “She was provided with copies of the journal works where similarities were found and was given an opportunity to explain them. All appropriate legal processes were followed.”

The CW is that the debates favor Clinton, but not only has Obama become a stronger, more effective debater, the bigger – and more frequent – applause lines of the evening seem to be going for him (and add to that CNN cutting to break right after a big applause line for him twice in a row). Impressions?

In academic papers, and we can easily cite that source in context. But I’ve never seen anyone perform a Shakespeare play and shout out “that phrase is from the Bible”. And it utterly screws up a speech.

Cin, as a professor who has to deal with plagiarism issues (students) I have to say your comment is so apt, and made me totally LOL. As far as I am concerned, this Obama “plagiarism” thing is a TOTAL non-issue.

Obama smashed the “copycat” issue, of course people will whisper away for a few weeks until March 4th. A political speech is pretty open to re-hashing the same thing over and over amoung other things (like Hillary Clinton lifting lines from Bill Clinton).

Plagiarism………the act of passing off as one’s own, the ideas or writings of another.

Ironically I’ve seen these policy statements lifted en masse from other sources without citing where they obtained them from!

Hillary is attacking Obama for “whole passages” – yet the fact is that the “passages” are from major speeches of MLK, the Constitution, etc. Obama was clearly NOT claiming credit for creating those ideas OR those phrases. There were two words, “Just words” that were paraphrased from Patrick (who used “Only words”).

Hillary has used far more, sequential and repeated words from her OPPONENTS in HER speeches. But she exempts herself in her attacks…since HER campaign isn’t “about words”.

Now I understand why Campbell Brown gets to moderate — she’s getting her own program, against Olbermann. Bless her heart

.

Against KO? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! That won’t last long, if ratings still matter. I repeat, why is a person married to a partisan operative covering politics at all?
(yeah, it really is a rhetorical question, I guess)+

I believe it is from a HuffPo post today (sorry no link… I’ll look for one) where it is revealed that Obama has the same speech writer who wrote for Patrick… and so no big surprise that similar/same words would be employed in the same context.

So Obama didn’t copy, steal or plagiarize anything… his speech writer was lazy and used words he’d previously penned.

So will everyone just take a big breath and realize this is a NON issue… and the fact that the Clinton campaign has labeled it plagiarism is completely disingenuous and typical behavior from frantic politicians.

The thing that worries me tho is if so many relatively informed people at FDL don’t know the backstory…. then for sure the public might be duped by the lies.

Okay, we have had the amnesty question for the poor and tattered desperado’s living in the shadows. Can we get a question about amnesty for billion dollar telecommunication firms violating the constitution in broad daylight? Whatcha gonna do about it?

i already answered that …they are paid to make her ideas more eloquent … that’s a different concept… although i have to say I respect those that can write their own speeches a lot more, than those who use speech writers… again Reagan comes to mind as a great speaker of other’s speechs, Lincoln, Roosevelt wrote their own speechs! Same with Kennedy, great speech writers… but basically his ideas

That’s the second time you’ve asked me not to put words in your mouth where I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, but instead giving examples.

My point is simply it’s disigenuous, hypocritical, and desperate of Hillary Clinton to even waste a nanosecond on Obama’s use of Patrick’s phrases when her husband lifted tons of lines from other people and she has been poaching nearly every slogan Obama came up with that has the word change in it.

I’m glad to either have missed her using the absurd phrase that she is about so–loooo—shuns in the debate.

Putting words in your mouth would happen if I attributed them to you. I’m not doing that.

I think that the plagiarism tack that the Clinton campaign wants to push is silly given the context that Obama was told to use Patrick’s characterization of famous speeches by Patrick who is working on his campaign, and it’s simply a desperate diversion from the issues.

It’s also as difficult for a speech maker to start citing as if they were writing and footnoting a thesis as you know as it would have been for you in closing argument if you used a well known slogan.

Joe Biden’s case where he lifted from Neil Kinnock was to me and to a lot of people a different situation from Obama’s. Biden adapted the context of Kinnock’s biography.

I don’t think the attempt by Clinton’s campaign to discredit Obama for using Patrick’s characterization has gone or will go anywhere for her.

I missed most, can someone tell me their respective positions on health care, or provide a link. I think I heard that Obama would require parents to provide health care, that is a very bad idea, because it is not affordable now, what’s going to change, that would just add more vultures to the group already attacking us. If I miss heard I stand corrected.

Actually something like 75% of the legislative acts Hillary authored were earmarks added onto spending bills (remember the Woodstock Museum). Obama actually authored legislation that would require that any add-ons be published 72 hours in advance of a Bills final vote, and that the author of the earmark be designated on the earmark.

People in academia (and I’m one) sometimes forget that issues like this are dealt with in vastly different ways. Musicians legitimately crib riffs (and anonymously pay the rights holders) to the material. You don’t find that material on the album (sometimes whole songs, yes…but two words?).

Hillary has used far more material from others, OPPONENTS, in her own speeches. It was hypocritical.

The idea that Obama expressed in that speech was a rebuttal to Clintons attacks that his speeches were simply “just words”. It was the use of famous speeches (which he never claimed were his own) were “just words”.

If that idea is copyrightable or plagiarism I’d really be surprised. It seems that he was hoisting her on her own petard. I’ve heard many people say that when they heard Hillary attack they had the same reaction.

A parallel is when someone says the Theory of Evolution is “Just A Theory”…one replies with cases where the Theory is a powerful tool to explain the natural world and say “Just A Theory?”

It’s a widely used rhetorical device. I’m surprised you are unaware of it.

The thing that worries me tho is if so many relatively informed people at FDL don’t know the backstory…. then for sure the public might be duped by the lies.

There are lies of commission and lies of omission. Perhaps the worst lies have been that Clinton & Obama are the only candidates for president. Once you allow that you let the liars pick our next president. Yeah, we’ve got a problem.